Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Swapan Kumar Manna & Ors vs Sisir Guin on 21 February, 2022
21.02.2022
SL No.23
Court No.8
(gc)
SA 3 of 2021
Swapan Kumar Manna & Ors.
Vs.
Sisir Guin
(Via Video Conference)
The appellants are not represented nor any
accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellants.
On the earlier occasion, the appellants were also not
represented. We adjourned this matter on the last
occasion with a specific observation that the matter shall
be listed today, i.e. 21st February, 2022 as a last chance.
This second appeal is arising out of a judgment and
decree dated 25th January, 2019 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court,
Arambagh, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.13 of 2017 whereby
the Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree
dated 12th May, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), 1st Court, Arambagh, Hooghly in Title
Suit No.05 of 2012. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a
suit for declaration of right, title and interest as well as the
confirmation of possession and permanent injunction
along with other consequential reliefs. Before the Trial
Court, the plaintiff was able to establish his right, title and
interest in respect of the suit property by production of the
record of rights, namely, L.R.R.O.R., which was marked as
2
Exhibit No.1, and also Khajna Dakhila, which was marked
as Exhibit No.2, wherefrom it appears that 6 satak
property at Plot no.1891 had been recorded in the name of
the plaintiff and it also mentioned that he is in possession
of the same on the basis of patta.
The learned Trial Court also relied upon the report of
the Commissioner which was exhibited and marked as
Exhibit No.4 wherefrom the existence of the club over the
suit property could not be found. It also transpired during
evidence that D.W.1 in his cross-examination dated 26th
February, 2016 deposed that "We have no document to
show that Sisir Guin get the patta over the suit property
on behalf of our club." "We never paid any khajna for the
suit property to the State of West Bengal."
In absence of any document forthcoming on behalf the
defendants either to establish possession and/or
construction of any club building over the suit property or
title and having regard to the fact that the plaintiff was
able to establish his possession and title to the suit
property on the basis of the evidence as mentioned above,
the plaintiff having a better title to the property as
opposed to no title by the appellants is entitled in law to
get a declaration of right, title and interest as also
confirmation of possession. [see Tarumoni vs. Prafulla :
06(3) CHN 1]
Both the Courts, in our view, have rightly rejected the
contention on behalf of the appellants that the patta was
3
handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on behalf of the
club. The appellants have failed to establish this case at
the trial either by documentary or by oral evidence. Once
the documents read with oral evidence clearly suggest and
establish the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, in the
suit property, in our view, the plaintiff is entitled to the
decree as claimed.
In view of the fact that no substantial question of law
is involved for which the second appeal can be admitted.
Under such circumstances, the second appeal being
SA 3 of 2021 stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
